United States v. [Accused]
E71443
"United States v. [Accused]" is the standard case caption format used in criminal prosecutions brought by the U.S. government against individual service members in the military justice system.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| United States v. [Accused] canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T569852 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: United States v. [Accused] Context triple: [United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, styleOfCase, United States v. [Accused]]
-
A.
United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s authority to civilly commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond their release date under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
-
B.
Bond v. United States
Bond v. United States is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified an individual’s ability to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to federal statutes, reinforcing limits on federal power in favor of state sovereignty.
-
C.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
D.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
E.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: United States v. [Accused] Target entity description: "United States v. [Accused]" is the standard case caption format used in criminal prosecutions brought by the U.S. government against individual service members in the military justice system.
-
A.
United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s authority to civilly commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond their release date under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
-
B.
Bond v. United States
Bond v. United States is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified an individual’s ability to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to federal statutes, reinforcing limits on federal power in favor of state sovereignty.
-
C.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
D.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
E.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (37)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
case caption format
ⓘ
legal convention ⓘ |
| accusedRole | criminal defendant ⓘ |
| appliesTo |
courts-martial
ⓘ
criminal prosecutions ⓘ individual service members ⓘ |
| associatedWith |
Department of Defense
ⓘ
Judge Advocate General’s Corps of each service ⓘ
surface form:
Judge Advocate General's Corps
|
| captionElement |
abbreviation "v." meaning "versus"
ⓘ
name of accused service member ⓘ name of sovereign (United States) ⓘ |
| captionPosition | appears at top of charging documents ⓘ |
| conventionOf | U.S. federal practice adapted to military courts ⓘ |
| denotes | adversarial relationship between government and accused ⓘ |
| distinguishedFrom | civil case captions such as "[Plaintiff] v. [Defendant]" ⓘ |
| formatType | standardized case title ⓘ |
| governingLaw | Uniform Code of Military Justice ⓘ |
| indicates | United States is real party in interest ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalDomain |
criminal law
ⓘ
military criminal procedure ⓘ |
| legalSystem | U.S. military law ⓘ |
| partyForDefense | [Accused] ⓘ |
| partyForProsecution |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| requires | identification of specific accused in place of [Accused] placeholder ⓘ |
| scope | offenses triable by court-martial ⓘ |
| sovereignRole | prosecuting authority ⓘ |
| usedBy |
U.S. military prosecutors
ⓘ
United States government ⓘ |
| usedIn |
general court-martial
ⓘ
military justice system ⓘ special court-martial ⓘ summary court-martial ⓘ |
| usedInDocuments |
charge sheets
ⓘ
court-martial records ⓘ military appellate opinions ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: United States v. [Accused] Description of subject: "United States v. [Accused]" is the standard case caption format used in criminal prosecutions brought by the U.S. government against individual service members in the military justice system.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.